USADA - Armstrong

[Tubeless]

The UCI did not sign up to the WADA code until 2004.
So in 2001, any positive would only have been between UCI and the IOC.

I wrote this "speculation" in June 2010 - and it would still seem a plausible scenario. The bits of new information we've learned since then (this was writen just after the Landis accusations of the coverup of the TdS EPO positive) fit the theory. Because there was no WADA back then, the lab had to answer only to the sports federation in question - UCI in this case.

Logistics for this can be quite simple. It's a small circle of people who all know each other. Race in question, lab analysing the samples and UCI are all located in the same country - Switzerland, land of confidentiality. A positive A sample would have been known to perhaps just 1-2 persons at the lab, and 1-2 at the UCI.

A plausible sequence of events is as follows:

1. Lausanne lab analysing 2001 Tour de Suisse comes up with a positive for EPO on one of the samples taken during the race. The lab does not know the name (this info is at the UCI), and reports the case to UCI with the rider's code number only.

2. UCI gets the word via a phone call ahead of any official paperwork, and UCI checks its rider code database for the name. It's a big one, 2-time Tour de France winner Armstrong.

3. UCI managers decide this would a big scandal - in fact too big. This could possibly threaten the sport, cause cycling to be excluded from the 2004 Olympics and even result in calls for the ouster of the UCI leadership itself. Best to handle "within the cycling family". Verbruggen places a call to Bruyneel whom he knows personally.

4. Bruyneel and Armstrong meet with Verbuggen and they come up with a plan. Armstrong agrees to sin no more and commits to donate a "generous" amount to UCI for its anti-doping work. UCI agrees to overlook the sample as a "borderline" case, as the test for EPO is still quite new and subject to interpretations.

5. All agree that the donation is to be kept secret until Armstrong retires. Further, the payment would be delayed by a few years to separate the crime from the payoff.

6. Both sides feel this is technically not a bribe, since Armstrong is helping cycling, not any one individual. No one will ever know about the EPO positive since both sides have a vested interest to keep that quiet. And it would have likely remained secret forever, if Armstrong had not have bragged about it to Landis during a training ride in 2002.

7. Lab is told that the sample in question did not result in a sanction due to the bordeline value, an existing TUE, or some such excuse - the lab is never required to report the positive to IOC, WADA or elsewhere since the B sample was never touched. Case closed as far as the lab is concerned. No record of a "positive test" or a "positive sample".

8. Few people within UCI would know the facts, and all would share the boss's view anyhow - all in the best interest of cycling. No documentation exists, other that Armstrong's donation which would happen years later. A catastrophy for the sport averted. Well done, Mr Verbruggen.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

I wrote this "speculation" in June 2010 - and it would still seem a plausible scenario. The bits of new information we've learned since then (this was writen just after the Landis accusations of the coverup of the TdS EPO positive) fit the theory. Because there was no WADA back then, the lab had to answer only to the sports federation in question - UCI in this case.

and.....USADA has a mole from Lab / UCI.

 

[Merckx index]

It's important to note that it's rare for the Swiss Federal Tribunal to actually hear an appeal of a CAS verdict. It's happened fewer than 10 times in CAS history.

CAS decisions can only be challenged on the basis of a “procedural error”, not on the evidence. For the usual doping positives, that is almost never a possibility. Contador considered an appeal, in fact, in 2011, when UCI and WADA announced they were appealing the RFEC decision and taking it to CAS, one of Contador’s lawyers was quoted as saying that though he didn’t anticipate losing at CAS, if they did, they would definitely appeal. But they didn’t.

LA might have a basis for appeal, given all the arguments about jurisdiction, due process, etc., that he has attempted to raise. OTOH, given how much publicity has been given to these arguments, one would expect any arbitrators at CAS would be very careful to reach a decision that took those considerations into account.

Lab is told that the sample in question did not result in a sanction due to the bordeline value, an existing TUE, or some such excuse - the lab is never required to report the positive to IOC, WADA or elsewhere since the B sample was never touched.

WADA did not test for cycling at that time, so I believe the lab would report only to UCI. The only person in your scenario other than those in on the scam who might know there was a disconnect would be the technician who ran and analyzed the gel (the lab director would be presumed to be in on this). Possibly the technician might notice that following the report of a positive, there was no announcement of some rider testing positive, and also no mention of testing the B sample. But I don’t know if that’s something a technician would pay attention to, particularly if there were other positive samples during that period. For example, suppose that lab reported three positives during some time period of several months, each one analyzed by a different technician. Unless the techs shared this information with each other, they would have no way of knowing that one of the positives was covered up. And even if there were a discrepancy, they would have no way of knowing if the announcement had for some reason been delayed.

IOW, while this scenario might be true, forget USADA ever proving it. Only a confession from one of the principals would establish it.


http://www.happyzebra.com/timezones-worldclock/currentlocal.php?city=Austin

Current local time in Austin, Texas USA is:

2:08 PM CLOT Central LIGHTS OUT Time

Current Day and Date in Austin is: DOOMSDAY 2012

 

[python]

http://www.happyzebra.com/timezones-worldclock/currentlocal.php?city=Austin

 

[DirtyWorks]

I wrote this "speculation" in June 2010 - and it would still seem a plausible scenario. The bits of new information we've learned since then (this was writen just after the Landis accusations of the coverup of the TdS EPO positive) fit the theory. Because there was no WADA back then, the lab had to answer only to the sports federation in question - UCI in this case.

Wouldn't it be nice if that's the one thing that blew it all up for Hein, Pat and Wonderboy. Maybe this is the thing Wonderboy has on Pat and Hein.

WADA says nothing as it justifies their existence, IOC can act shocked that an Olympic federation would do such a thing. This is the best possible outcome for the IOC as they could kick Pat and Hein out and continue to enable doping. Wonderboy's legacy is in tatters, ASO is untouched. The big money players come out very far ahead with no one questioning their role.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I wrote this "speculation" in June 2010 - and it would still seem a plausible scenario. The bits of new information we've learned since then (this was writen just after the Landis accusations of the coverup of the TdS EPO positive) fit the theory. Because there was no WADA back then, the lab had to answer only to the sports federation in question - UCI in this case.

Great analysis - and I would add it is easier than you suggest.

Your points;
7. Lab is told that the sample in question did not result in a sanction due to the bordeline value, an existing TUE, or some such excuse - the lab is never required to report the positive to IOC, WADA or elsewhere since the B sample was never touched. Case closed as far as the lab is concerned. No record of a "positive test" or a "positive sample".

8. Few people within UCI would know the facts, and all would share the boss's view anyhow - all in the best interest of cycling. No documentation exists, other that Armstrong's donation which would happen years later. A catastrophy for the sport averted. Well done, Mr Verbruggen.

To point 7 we now know it was declared a "suspicious" sample - suspicious is 70-80%, positive is above 80%.

Not hard to see a +80% being requested to have "another look" - and perhaps a more senior analysist at Luasanne thought it fell just below 80% ..... nothing to see here.

 

[QuickStepper]

Right! Add jurisdiction into the question of employee status and there's an even bigger puzzle to sort out.

I hate to even go down this road, but what in the world does Armstrong's "employee status" have to do with whether or not USADA has jurisdiction to sanction (or even bring the charges against) Armstrong? I have read fastandfat's posts on the impact that U.S. labor laws may ulimtately play in terms of any redress that, for example, MLB or NFL or NHL players may have against their employers in connection with workplace injuries and conditions of the work environment, but......help me here because I'm just not seeing this.....what does that have to do with whether Armstrong doped or didn't or with whether or not USADA does or doesn't have the power to sanction him.

Is the argument that because the doping was "systematic" and essentially "required" by the USPS-Disco-Astana-RS teams, part of an unstated "condition" of continued employment, that this somehow would exculpate the rider from responsibility or relieve him of potential exposure to sanction by a sport anti-doping body, whether that's UCI, USADA, USAC, or any other sports-body that would have jurisdiction?

I just don't see it for any number of reasons, including that the issue of an athlete doping is one of "strict liability" and has nothing to do with intent, compulsion or anything else. Granted, the Armstrong case isn't about analytical results, but instead rests on USADA's non-analytical charges which will be based on, apparently, the eyewitness testimony of percipient witnesses to this alleged doping, trafficking and possession, but still, the question of an athlete's "intent" as to whether or not there has been a basic violation of the use of a banned substance is really not relevant, nor would any excuse like "my team made me do it" be a legitimate legal excuse either.

And as someone else said, it's not a question of what remedy the athlete (in this case Armstrong) might have against his employer because that's just not at issue here, and besides, as part owner of at least one of the teams that employed him, what's he gonna do. sue himself? That he told himself as a rider, wearing his employer's hat, that unless he doped, he would be terminated? Think of Woody Allen cross-examining himself in "Bananas". Something like that. Just isn't going to happen here. No way.

It does raise the question that has come from guys like Frankie Andreu or Jonathan Vaughters, which is the culture of drug use in the peloton and among the team DS's and the pressure that some riders felt (feel) to dope. Maybe if what happened to those guys had happened 20 years later (i.e., now) and took place in the U.S. (or arguably with a US-domiciled employer) the federal labor laws might be relevant in a dispute between the rider and his employer. But again, I don't see this as even being suggestive of anything in connection with a claim and charge made by an anti-doping sports enforcement body that an athlete engaged in use of a banned substance, because the rules there are pretty clear that pressure, intent or social pressures are irrlevant to a determination as to whether the rider did or didn't use, posssess or traffic.

 

[thehog]

Great analysis - and I would add it is easier than you suggest.

Your points;
7. Lab is told that the sample in question did not result in a sanction due to the bordeline value, an existing TUE, or some such excuse - the lab is never required to report the positive to IOC, WADA or elsewhere since the B sample was never touched. Case closed as far as the lab is concerned. No record of a "positive test" or a "positive sample".

8. Few people within UCI would know the facts, and all would share the boss's view anyhow - all in the best interest of cycling. No documentation exists, other that Armstrong's donation which would happen years later. A catastrophy for the sport averted. Well done, Mr Verbruggen.

To point 7 we now know it was declared a "suspicious" sample - suspicious is 70-80%, positive is above 80%.

Not hard to see a +80% being requested to have "another look" - and perhaps a more senior analysist at Luasanne thought it fell just below 80% ..... nothing to see here.

I'm told that a visit from "Lance" to the lab was used as a "celebrity" appearance. To make sure that everyone knew the excellent work he was doing in the cancer space and anti-doping efforts.

Appears some were "overawed" by the visit. Along with the UCI saying it will go no further.

McQuaid's defence that he couldn't find any positive tests from the TdS was a foil. Of course there were none.

 

[mewmewmew13]

http://www.happyzebra.com/timezones-worldclock/currentlocal.php?city=Austin

Hehe python!

 

[DirtyWorks]

I hate to even go down this road, but what in the world does Armstrong's "employee status" have to do with whether or not USADA has jurisdiction to sanction (or even bring the charges against) Armstrong?

The intent was to clarify a statement you made here http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=993946#post993946
about Wonderboy being an employee. It kind of wandered from there.

As posted earlier, that fatandfast is mentioning labor law to salvage their faith is just how far the faithful have to go with probably still more mental gymnastics to come to hang onto the myth.

 

[Oldman]

Oldman I go with Dad. Lance is the greatest racer of our generation. I am amused that our paths crossed at Ocean Beach bike shop,wed rides, Zigguratt and other informal rides . He is no guru. The guy was good when he raced Kenny Souza at his start. He trained with Tinley,Molina and Scott to start.

The guy is was extraordinary from his beginning

If he upended bike racing fine. But doping? No dope in the NHL,NBA,FIFA teams?
This is the UCI and it's smallness. Dopers are all over.from drisage to world leaders trying to look viral to the voter..leave my sport alone..give everyone Rubios and this is done.

Not sure what you meant by "go with Dad". My Dad thought Lance was a despicably self-agrandizing opportunist. That trumped any athletic credentials because Dad valued human integrity over hyped-up sports accomplishments. Considering my Dad was a Big-ten starting quarterback; that's no small evolution.
"world leaders trying to look viral to the voter...leave my sport alone" is a leap in logic regarding the proceedings. I don't see any "world leaders" other than Spain's PM defending Contador speaking to this isolated doper. Most of the minor US legislators dim enough to comment were solicited by LA and his team. McCain and others spoke out so as not to be questioned later about possible lobbyist influence; which is something they should do more often.
The emergent issue imo is still the international traffic of controlled substances. MLB is busting very visible Star-quality players as well as minor leaguers because Congress suggested that might by important. The NFL is finally starting to address their health related problems because they are rightfully being sued for perpetuating and concealing similar abuses. The pressure is on many fronts.

 

[LauraLyn]

Yes, maybe, no. He had/has a role in the Tailwind corporation and Capital Sports and Entertainment and effectively called the shots from what has been gathered.

How that works out legally in regards to his status as the legal definition of an "employee" I don't have a clue. Colloquially, he was at minimum one of the bosses.

Different case. Not relevant to USADA case. (Not now anyway.)

 

[Oldman]

The intent was to clarify a statement you made here http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=993946#post993946
about Wonderboy being an employee. It kind of wandered from there.

As posted earlier, that fatandfast is mentioning labor law to salvage their faith is just how far the faithful have to go with probably still more mental gymnastics to come to hang onto the myth.

Love the "employee" angle. No decent athlete operates that way because it limits the tax write-offs for so many things. They are generally employed on personal service agreements and cycling is only part of what they are contracturally obligated to do. In fact that agreement probably included morals and drug-abuse clauses. That Lance separately could partly own a management company that controlled the riders, including himself; doesn't help him as most know.

 

[oldschoolnik]

Bill 'BS' Strickland interviews Betsy

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/5-questions-betsy-andreu

great line Betsy



Chapeau

Strickland---an apologist to the end. He chooses to ask stupid questions--about who should get his jerserys--questions befitting a layperson rather than the insider he is. Wonder what aspects of the case he is "far apart from Betsy's views". No intelligent questions at all about USDA's case.

 

[QuickStepper]

While I consider it unlikely that Armstrong's legal team will file an appeal of Judge Sparks' ruling with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, I've been checking hourly (at a cost of $0.10 each time) on Pacer all day today, and as of 2:19 p.m. (local time in N.O.) nothing has been filed.

 

[LauraLyn]

While I consider it unlikely that Armstrong's legal team will file an appeal of Judge Sparks' ruling with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, I've been checking hourly (at a cost of $0.10 each time) on Pacer all day today, and as of 2:19 p.m. (local time in N.O.) nothing has been filed.

Can we contribute to you dime fund?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Hehe python!

Any way we could have that running at the top of the thread?

 

[Square-pedaller]

I've been checking hourly (at a cost of $0.10 each time) on Pacer all day today

Really pushing the boat out there

 

[TheMight]

and.....USADA has a mole from Lab / UCI.

If this is true, then what's the next step? Lance, JB and the tailwind boys are certainly just the opening act, right?

I'm not sure what pull USADA has to get UCI defrocked other than going public with the evidence.

 

[TexPat]

Can we contribute to you dime fund?

Perhaps a charity could be set up? We could sell bracelets made of little yellow plastic dimes.

 

[LauraLyn]

CAS decisions can only be challenged on the basis of a “procedural error”, not on the evidence. . . .

LA might have a basis for appeal, given all the arguments about jurisdiction, due process, etc., that he has attempted to raise. OTOH, given how much publicity has been given to these arguments, one would expect any arbitrators at CAS would be very careful to reach a decision that took those considerations into account.

WADA did not test for cycling at that time . . . .

IOW, while this scenario might be true, forget USADA ever proving it. Only a confession from one of the principals would establish it.

"All the arguments about . . . " All lost. No coming back on those (as things now stand).

"Testing," "samples," "500 . . . " not relevant in any way today.

Only one confession will trump the USADA's proof. Guess whose. (And guess on whose terms.)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

http://www.happyzebra.com/timezones-worldclock/currentlocal.php?city=Austin

Any way we could have that running at the top of the thread?

I may be wrong on this - but todays extension was offered by USADA.
So therefore it would be subject to Colorado time, which is an extra hour as its Mountain Daylight Time.

If so then this is the correct time http://www.happyzebra.com/timezones-worldclock/currentlocal.php?city=denver

 

[LauraLyn]

Perhaps a charity could be set up? We could sell bracelets made of little yellow plastic dimes.

Nah. Too expensive. No one would buy one. (And we wouldn't feel good passing on the disease.)

 

[goober]

Big news comming

 

[serottasyclist]

"All the arguments about . . . " All lost. No coming back on those (as things now stand).

"Testing," "samples," "500 . . . " not relevant in any way today.

Only one confession will trump the USADA's proof. Guess whose. (And guess on whose terms.)

Did you read Judge Sparks' opinion? The only thing regarding "jurisdiction" that was decided there was that arbitration was the place to determine whether or not USADA has authority to bring the charges set forth in its charging letter. Thus, "all the arguments about jurisdiction" have not even been addressed yet, let alone lost.